incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pratik Paranjape <pratikparanj...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Future of Apache wave [Was: Re: Advantages of P2P messaging?]
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:11:37 GMT
Thanks for the link Michael. Having a look. I really think we should go
HTTP. I thought of a model where two wave servers simply act as participant
in a different "system" wave, communicating over same protocol and tool
set. Riding our own horse instead of new external protocol. DNS can help
for resolving. I will see if I can elaborate on that.

To clarify about P2P: I understand wanting to have p2p in the sense that
SMTP is...servers do work sort of p2p, no central node. But clients don't.
We do not have little email servers in our devices.

If I have understood correctly some of us have shown interest in having
truly p2p communication between clients, including data and OT. I think
this was the way some wavewatchers wanted to go. This is different than
"server" p2p. I was wondering how many of think its technically feasible
and want to go that way.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Pratik Paranjape <pratikparanjape@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Has anyone actually thought over how it will be possible for something
> like wave to be P2P over HTTP? With security and data replication
> requirements? I don't see it myself :) Is this a direction many of us are
> thinking (technically) about?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Pratik Paranjape <
> pratikparanjape@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> XMPP is what making servers federate in current code Bruno. Setting up
>> prosody etc...
>>
>> http://wave-protocol.googlecode.com/hg/spec/federation/wavespec.html
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <
>> stenyak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is XMPP involved in the connection of Mobile devices in wiab or the
>>> defunct
>>> google wave?
>>> Or are you thinking about a future when wave has already become a P2P
>>> software?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Michael MacFadden <
>>> michael.macfadden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The general consensus was that XMPP had to much overhead to be
>>> practical
>>> > in anything theory than highly connected environments for lively
>>> > collaboration.  As bandwidth trails off, and/or you don't have
>>> persistent
>>> > TCP connections (I.e. Mobile devices).  XMPP was killing the ability
>>> for
>>> > lively collaboration.
>>> >
>>> > On 6/12/13 3:02 PM, "Dave" <wave@glark.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >On 12/06/13 14:48, Yuri Z wrote:
>>> > >> But without XMPP you would need to define your own discovery
>>> protocol.
>>> > >
>>> > >Yes. And implement alternatives for a couple of other bits such as
>>> > >stream encryption, and anti-spoofing (such as dialback).
>>> > >
>>> > >Nothing particularly tricky, although personally I don't think it's
>>> > >worthwhile. There's a lot of XMPP specs and implementations that we
>>> > >don't use, and our use of XMPP might be unusual, but I don't think
>>> it's
>>> > >unreasonable.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >Dave
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Saludos,
>>>      Bruno González
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
>>> http://www.stenyak.com
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message